30
|
|
Post by gigecj on Jul 21, 2021 11:09:58 GMT -6
That may be the worst collection of protected defensemen this world will ever lay eyes on. What a shitty trade for Z. What a gawd damn shitty trade that was. How many shitty trades does a loser get these days? My goodness!!! Word is,the big Russian wants 6M AAV......he's worth about half that. Again, Why? Our GM doesn't have the knack to anticipate such things on top of every other issue he has. |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Jul 21, 2021 12:38:33 GMT -6
Word is,the big Russian wants 6M AAV......he's worth about half that. Again, Why? Our GM doesn't have the knack to anticipate such things on top of every other issue he has. Maybe Z doesnt want to play here and the only way to make that happen is price himself out. Hes really not needed here |
|
|
|
Post by gigecj on Jul 21, 2021 12:56:16 GMT -6
Again, Why? Our GM doesn't have the knack to anticipate such things on top of every other issue he has. Maybe Z doesnt want to play here and the only way to make that happen is price himself out. Hes really not needed here So, let me get this perfectly straight. Stan now seems to be able to make a trade of Brandon Saad to the Colorado Avalanche for a guy who doesn't want to play for Chicago. The fact that said player doesn't want to play for Chicago means that Stan Bowman is off the hook and it matters not that we no longer have Saad or anyone that he would beget on the team. Do I have this right? |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Jul 21, 2021 12:57:23 GMT -6
Maybe Z doesnt want to play here and the only way to make that happen is price himself out. Hes really not needed here So, let me get this perfectly straight. Stan now seems to be able to make a trade of Brandon Saad to the Colorado Avalanche for a guy who doesn't want to play for Chicago. The fact that said player doesn't want to play for Chicago means that Stan Bowman is off the hook and it matters not that we no longer have Saad or anyone that he would beget on the team. Do I have this right? Not meaning SB is off the hook. Just stating what Z might be thinking |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Jul 21, 2021 13:14:17 GMT -6
Firstly Big Z is still a Blackhawk and is likely to remain one as 4M is too much for a #5 or #6 d-man and Seattle has better options to spend up to the cap. I am glad you agree that the players won Q his 3 Stanley Cups. If you credit Q for the cups you must also blame him for the LA meltdown in 2014, the 2 blown leads against St Louis in 2016 and the Western Conference Champions not being prepared for the 8th seeded Preds in 2017. The Blackhawks were terrible before Q's departure and that was why he was fired. Should a cup-less Cooper have been fired when his best ever regular season team was swept by an eight seed that rolled over the very next series......the Preds went on to the SCF after sweeping the Hawks. Support SB all you want but be careful if you do it at the cost of a hall of famer's reputation. The players were so good,we should have seen more cups? Gotta call BS on that! The Kings went on to win the cup after that unfortunate deflection off of Leddy in '14' and did you really expect the back-back n '16'........did anyone? A LOT of talented teams won one or no cups,Q winning three sets him apart. Describe terrible. I happen to think two under is terrible. The team was .500 15 games in without a few key players when Q was fired and many still feel the Org fired the wrong guy. Why do I say this,Florida was four games over when Q arrived and two years later finds that team with the league's 4th best record and Jack Adams runner up for Q. The Caps have gone out in the first round every year since winning their only cup then dumping their GREAT coach........coaching can make all the difference to a good team and we had the right one at the right time. Has the team improved after dumping the hall of fame coach? The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. |
|
|
|
Post by hawks27 on Jul 21, 2021 13:26:47 GMT -6
Should a cup-less Cooper have been fired when his best ever regular season team was swept by an eight seed that rolled over the very next series......the Preds went on to the SCF after sweeping the Hawks. Support SB all you want but be careful if you do it at the cost of a hall of famer's reputation. The players were so good,we should have seen more cups? Gotta call BS on that! The Kings went on to win the cup after that unfortunate deflection off of Leddy in '14' and did you really expect the back-back n '16'........did anyone? A LOT of talented teams won one or no cups,Q winning three sets him apart. Describe terrible. I happen to think two under is terrible. The team was .500 15 games in without a few key players when Q was fired and many still feel the Org fired the wrong guy. Why do I say this,Florida was four games over when Q arrived and two years later finds that team with the league's 4th best record and Jack Adams runner up for Q. The Caps have gone out in the first round every year since winning their only cup then dumping their GREAT coach........coaching can make all the difference to a good team and we had the right one at the right time. Has the team improved after dumping the hall of fame coach? The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. You don't have to be a "hockey guy" to know what you said in you last sentence. You just need to have some common sense and good supporting people. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on Jul 21, 2021 14:49:59 GMT -6
Should a cup-less Cooper have been fired when his best ever regular season team was swept by an eight seed that rolled over the very next series......the Preds went on to the SCF after sweeping the Hawks. Support SB all you want but be careful if you do it at the cost of a hall of famer's reputation. The players were so good,we should have seen more cups? Gotta call BS on that! The Kings went on to win the cup after that unfortunate deflection off of Leddy in '14' and did you really expect the back-back n '16'........did anyone? A LOT of talented teams won one or no cups,Q winning three sets him apart. Describe terrible. I happen to think two under is terrible. The team was .500 15 games in without a few key players when Q was fired and many still feel the Org fired the wrong guy. Why do I say this,Florida was four games over when Q arrived and two years later finds that team with the league's 4th best record and Jack Adams runner up for Q. The Caps have gone out in the first round every year since winning their only cup then dumping their GREAT coach........coaching can make all the difference to a good team and we had the right one at the right time. Has the team improved after dumping the hall of fame coach? The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. Sorry gotta disagree 3 forwards caught up ice on the tying goal execution failed not strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Jul 21, 2021 15:04:46 GMT -6
Should a cup-less Cooper have been fired when his best ever regular season team was swept by an eight seed that rolled over the very next series......the Preds went on to the SCF after sweeping the Hawks. Support SB all you want but be careful if you do it at the cost of a hall of famer's reputation. The players were so good,we should have seen more cups? Gotta call BS on that! The Kings went on to win the cup after that unfortunate deflection off of Leddy in '14' and did you really expect the back-back n '16'........did anyone? A LOT of talented teams won one or no cups,Q winning three sets him apart. Describe terrible. I happen to think two under is terrible. The team was .500 15 games in without a few key players when Q was fired and many still feel the Org fired the wrong guy. Why do I say this,Florida was four games over when Q arrived and two years later finds that team with the league's 4th best record and Jack Adams runner up for Q. The Caps have gone out in the first round every year since winning their only cup then dumping their GREAT coach........coaching can make all the difference to a good team and we had the right one at the right time. Has the team improved after dumping the hall of fame coach? The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. The Hawks also would've won if LA's 1st and 3rd goals weren't way offside, they had to cheat to win. Carter was almost 2' offside and scored with a high stick, that's how he got behind Oduya. Their 3rd goal Garborik was far offside. Then that summer they implemented the coaches challenge 🤔 Yeah Q failed but so did the officials. |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 21, 2021 15:52:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 21, 2021 16:07:26 GMT -6
Should a cup-less Cooper have been fired when his best ever regular season team was swept by an eight seed that rolled over the very next series......the Preds went on to the SCF after sweeping the Hawks. Support SB all you want but be careful if you do it at the cost of a hall of famer's reputation. The players were so good,we should have seen more cups? Gotta call BS on that! The Kings went on to win the cup after that unfortunate deflection off of Leddy in '14' and did you really expect the back-back n '16'........did anyone? A LOT of talented teams won one or no cups,Q winning three sets him apart. Describe terrible. I happen to think two under is terrible. The team was .500 15 games in without a few key players when Q was fired and many still feel the Org fired the wrong guy. Why do I say this,Florida was four games over when Q arrived and two years later finds that team with the league's 4th best record and Jack Adams runner up for Q. The Caps have gone out in the first round every year since winning their only cup then dumping their GREAT coach........coaching can make all the difference to a good team and we had the right one at the right time. Has the team improved after dumping the hall of fame coach? The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. Nothing more than a misguided ax to grind against a true Hall of Fame head coach in a feeble effort to make SB more valuable.........just awful on your part! The greatest coach in team history by miles brings the first cup in 49 rancid years and two more for good measure and you say it shoulda been more.....sounds like entitlement to me. Enjoy the smell though because you won't sniff another one for decades with the worst GM in hockey runnin' the shit show. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 21, 2021 19:11:09 GMT -6
Kinda shows just how bad the D is... |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 21, 2021 19:34:47 GMT -6
Kinda shows just how bad the D is... well, yeah, kinda I guess. seems like it shows more that the Krak are looking to use cap space as a weapon to add to their team to me. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 21, 2021 19:58:22 GMT -6
The players were good and we would have won in 2014 if Q had not have been outcoached. We had a 2-0 lead and were starting our second 5 on 3 and instead of waiting for an exhausted LA team to call a much needed timeout we wasted ours. On the way to that unfortunate deflection off Leddy we had two 2 goal leads and both times Q went for his pattented protect the lead stratedgy which obviously failed. Remember that wasted time out, it sure would have come in handy when it was 4-3. I never played organized hockey so I could be considered a non hockey guy. Over years of observations I come to the conclusion that in a deciding game If you have a team down you stomp them. The Hawks also would've won if LA's 1st and 3rd goals weren't way offside, they had to cheat to win. Carter was almost 2' offside and scored with a high stick, that's how he got behind Oduya. Their 3rd goal Garborik was far offside. Then that summer they implemented the coaches challenge 🤔 Yeah Q failed but so did the officials. Do you believe the team should have three-peated? In the cap era? We have to remember the center situation in '14',Hanzus got old in a hurry after '13' with 4 goals that year and Richards and Vermette weren't here yet. Sharp was the 2LC and Shaw was 3LC or visa-versa. Shooter led the team with 78 points n '14'. |
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on Jul 21, 2021 20:43:22 GMT -6
The Hawks also would've won if LA's 1st and 3rd goals weren't way offside, they had to cheat to win. Carter was almost 2' offside and scored with a high stick, that's how he got behind Oduya. Their 3rd goal Garborik was far offside. Then that summer they implemented the coaches challenge 🤔 Yeah Q failed but so did the officials. Do you believe the team should have three-peated? In the cap era? We have to remember the center situation in '14',Hanzus got old in a hurry after '13' with 4 goals that year and Richards and Vermette weren't here yet. Sharp was the 2LC and Shaw was 3LC or visa-versa. Shooter led the team with 78 points n '14'. If 1 of those 2 offsides were called it wouldn't have went to OT. Hawks winning in game 7 at home then playing the Rangers for the Cup with the core the Hawks had, yeah they would've had a three-peat and first team to win back to back in the cap era, not Pittsburgh 🤢 |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Jul 21, 2021 22:33:50 GMT -6
Firstly Big Z is still a Blackhawk and is likely to remain one as 4M is too much for a #5 or #6 d-man and Seattle has better options to spend up to the cap. I am glad you agree that the players won Q his 3 Stanley Cups. If you credit Q for the cups you must also blame him for the LA meltdown in 2014, the 2 blown leads against St Louis in 2016 and the Western Conference Champions not being prepared for the 8th seeded Preds in 2017. The Blackhawks were terrible before Q's departure and that was why he was fired. This is like saying I build a house from the ground up. You do some yard work and landscaping and say you did all the work. Scam did very minimal work, and the work he did do, he was told to do it. He wanted his shot at the big time and he’s ruined everything in his path. Why? Because he’s not a hockey guy, and he never will be. I never played any level of baseball, just leisurely. Gig has played at a decent level. I’d bet anything he builds a better baseball team than me as I just don’t understudy day to day workings of a team. However, if I worked with Gig and listened to reason, we could be a decent team. However, if I fire him over a power struggle, I’m probably not going to have the success I did with him. Have you care to even look at the assistant’s under Scam these days? I mean it’s a collection of losers and Scam knows it. They have absolutely no one around to take his throne. It’s Pulford bullshit all over again. You can stick up to the losing and lunacy, but those 3 Cups were gonna be had without him, and more than likely more Cups if he wasn’t in charge. He sucks at hockey and it sounds like he sucks at life too. So please don’t stick up for his supporting of a pedophile, and being in charge of an org that allowed this to happen. No more excuses!!! Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 22, 2021 8:07:14 GMT -6
This is like saying I build a house from the ground up. You do some yard work and landscaping and say you did all the work. Scam did very minimal work, and the work he did do, he was told to do it. He wanted his shot at the big time and he’s ruined everything in his path. Why? Because he’s not a hockey guy, and he never will be. I never played any level of baseball, just leisurely. Gig has played at a decent level. I’d bet anything he builds a better baseball team than me as I just don’t understudy day to day workings of a team. However, if I worked with Gig and listened to reason, we could be a decent team. However, if I fire him over a power struggle, I’m probably not going to have the success I did with him. Have you care to even look at the assistant’s under Scam these days? I mean it’s a collection of losers and Scam knows it. They have absolutely no one around to take his throne. It’s Pulford bullshit all over again. You can stick up to the losing and lunacy, but those 3 Cups were gonna be had without him, and more than likely more Cups if he wasn’t in charge. He sucks at hockey and it sounds like he sucks at life too. So please don’t stick up for his supporting of a pedophile, and being in charge of an org that allowed this to happen. No more excuses!!! Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 22, 2021 9:05:45 GMT -6
This is like saying I build a house from the ground up. You do some yard work and landscaping and say you did all the work. Scam did very minimal work, and the work he did do, he was told to do it. He wanted his shot at the big time and he’s ruined everything in his path. Why? Because he’s not a hockey guy, and he never will be. I never played any level of baseball, just leisurely. Gig has played at a decent level. I’d bet anything he builds a better baseball team than me as I just don’t understudy day to day workings of a team. However, if I worked with Gig and listened to reason, we could be a decent team. However, if I fire him over a power struggle, I’m probably not going to have the success I did with him. Have you care to even look at the assistant’s under Scam these days? I mean it’s a collection of losers and Scam knows it. They have absolutely no one around to take his throne. It’s Pulford bullshit all over again. You can stick up to the losing and lunacy, but those 3 Cups were gonna be had without him, and more than likely more Cups if he wasn’t in charge. He sucks at hockey and it sounds like he sucks at life too. So please don’t stick up for his supporting of a pedophile, and being in charge of an org that allowed this to happen. No more excuses!!! Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. I’m all for facts. But yours are just not true. Scam did not negotiate Hossa’s contract or pursue him. Tallon did. Tallon was “demoted”’on July 14/2009. He signed Hossa July 1/2009. Again. Trying to make Stan look great for doing what he’s always done. Nothing. His acquisitions were mediocre at best. Tallon said that the Hawks had a deep pipeline and we’re going to continue to build from within. Scam said he’d do the same. But he was too afraid to add another kid to the mix and a lot of kids just didn’t develop, and or went elsewhere. I guess you could blame Q again. Seems logical. Getting guys like Handzus etc hurt the core guys as they had to really pick up the slack for the incompetence those players provided. We’re talking about re-signing a guy who got 4 goals all year and is your second line center. His role was to be a scoring threat. He wasn’t that at all. Now that the team is poor and reflects his work a little better, he’s still doing the same things. This time he’s got no one to bail him out. He’s had high picks, he’s had cap space. What’s the excuses now? Excuses just blind you from the truth. Only a fool with a half handle of whiskey in their system could argue he’s done anything. Just like how you love to give Scam credit for things he clearly hasn’t done. Let’s reverse that. Barry Smith scouted and talked Panera into signing here. Scam literally just got the paper out of the printer. Marc Bergevin said that he scouted both Saad and Shaw and he took direct credit for Shaw. So take that away from Scam and what do ya got? He’s a fraud and he’s now finally getting called out for it. However, I’ve been his biggest fan all along, and I loved to call him out when he deserved it, and I loved to cheer for his move that panned out. But that move I’m still waiting for. Now he sure as hell sounds like he’s also a terrible human. Covering up horrible acts that happened on his watch. Just sickening that these owners are allowing Pulford 2.0 to happen. At least Pully didn’t allow sexual assault on his watch!!! |
|
puckjim
New Member
Posts: 7
Likes: 10
|
Post by puckjim on Jul 22, 2021 10:12:40 GMT -6
Quenneville lost me forever with the "Fresh Legs" game.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Jul 22, 2021 10:36:05 GMT -6
Quenneville lost me forever with the "Fresh Legs" game. PJ. Good to see ya!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 22, 2021 12:32:34 GMT -6
This is like saying I build a house from the ground up. You do some yard work and landscaping and say you did all the work. Scam did very minimal work, and the work he did do, he was told to do it. He wanted his shot at the big time and he’s ruined everything in his path. Why? Because he’s not a hockey guy, and he never will be. I never played any level of baseball, just leisurely. Gig has played at a decent level. I’d bet anything he builds a better baseball team than me as I just don’t understudy day to day workings of a team. However, if I worked with Gig and listened to reason, we could be a decent team. However, if I fire him over a power struggle, I’m probably not going to have the success I did with him. Have you care to even look at the assistant’s under Scam these days? I mean it’s a collection of losers and Scam knows it. They have absolutely no one around to take his throne. It’s Pulford bullshit all over again. You can stick up to the losing and lunacy, but those 3 Cups were gonna be had without him, and more than likely more Cups if he wasn’t in charge. He sucks at hockey and it sounds like he sucks at life too. So please don’t stick up for his supporting of a pedophile, and being in charge of an org that allowed this to happen. No more excuses!!! Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. BS......Q's the 2nd greatest HC of all time........the greatest of the cap era and Savard never coached anywhere again. Maybe you don't know but I sure as hell do! The team has only gotten worse since they allowed SB to fire him and that's a fact. How many does 'Little Caesar" win if his LOADED teams in Mtl and DET had to be gutted every year or two? Let alone add the best player available every year at the TDL! You want a mediocre GM to get his due and that's your business yet you refuse to give the HC who is widely regarded as the best of his era his. I made this comparison two years ago when Q took over in Florida and I'll repeat it word for word.... Chi was 2 over the previous year Fla 4 over Both teams had superstar scorers Both teams scored plenty Both teams gave up too many Both teams just signed a pricy goaltender......and the Hawks added another 15 million in FA's and trades that offseason. The two teams were very similar at the time and the Hawks added 20M in players so the whole rebuild excuse doesn't wash yet Florida's 32 over since then and the Hawks are 1 over. Jack Adams finalist also. |
|
|
|
Post by gigecj on Jul 22, 2021 12:40:36 GMT -6
Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. In the school district where I teach, we like to include every single worker in our quest to serve the public. In other words, the custodians, the cafeteria cooks, etc. get accolades for how well we do as a school. Still, and this is a bit harsh I'm afraid, few of us really think that the custodian's work is on the same plane as that of the principal. Stan wasn't a custodian, but it sounds as though he was not calling the shots in those early days either. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 22, 2021 13:06:42 GMT -6
Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. I thought Panarin was highly regarded when he decided to leave mother Russia and he basically had his choice of teams. He chose Chicago because he wanted to play with the great Patrick Kane........he chose well! While we gave up assets(mediocre but assets none the less)trading for Maata 4M(money already retained) and deHAAN-job 4.55M(dam near untradeable now) two summers ago the Habs signed Chiarot for 3.5M and the Habs were FAR from a go to destination at that point and here we are once again. Habs also added Joel Edmundson from the Canes last year for a 5th......we couldn't of offered a 4th? Both big,rugged D-men proved their worth in this year's PO's and here WE are once again. Stillman and C Jones to the rescue. |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Jul 22, 2021 13:07:53 GMT -6
Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. ^ lots of people dont want to give SB on that first bolded statement ^ mine was when they lost to the Preds in the PO. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on Jul 22, 2021 13:52:08 GMT -6
Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place type and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. As far as Stans drafts I dont think LA or PIT or Boston and any more than 3 major hits and Stan had alot of good minor ones shit Hartman was protected. All that being said Im with you on the second part he has no real long term plan never has he reacts. As far as the Hossa thing rumors were Dale wanted the bearded Jesus Scotty wanted Hossa who knows if this is true. As far as negotiating the contract the kids did that in 09, Hossa looked at that team and said I want to hitch my wagon to this. Agian just my takes, cant wait for the draft and moves so we can talk more future and less past. Thanks for all your posting boys you guys always give me alot to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by hawks27 on Jul 22, 2021 15:39:06 GMT -6
Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. In the school district where I teach, we like to include every single worker in our quest to serve the public. In other words, the custodians, the cafeteria cooks, etc. get accolades for how well we do as a school. Still, and this is a bit harsh I'm afraid, few of us really think that the custodian's work is on the same plane as that of the principal. Stan wasn't a custodian, but it sounds as though he was not calling the shots in those early days either. When I was working as a guidance counselor in a school in North Dakota, our principal once told me something I still remember to this day. He said, "If you or I were to be out of school in bad weather (like extreme cold or blizzards), the school could continue to operate. If Al (the head custodian) was out, the school may not be able to be open." That might have been a stretch, but the principal was wise enough to know the importance of each worker at the school of which he was in charge.
A real team, to be successful, needs to have all members (on or off the ice) pulling in the same direction and willing to do their share for the good of the team, and not be concerned with who may get the credit for the successes.
|
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Jul 22, 2021 15:48:22 GMT -6
In the school district where I teach, we like to include every single worker in our quest to serve the public. In other words, the custodians, the cafeteria cooks, etc. get accolades for how well we do as a school. Still, and this is a bit harsh I'm afraid, few of us really think that the custodian's work is on the same plane as that of the principal. Stan wasn't a custodian, but it sounds as though he was not calling the shots in those early days either. When I was working as a guidance counselor in a school in North Dakota, our principal once told me something I still remember to this day. He said, "If you or I were to be out of school in bad weather (like extreme cold or blizzards), the school could continue to operate. If Al (the head custodian) was out, the school may not be able to be open." That might have been a stretch, but the principal was wise enough to know the importance of each worker at the school of which he was in charge.
A real team, to be successful, needs to have all members (on or off the ice) pulling in the same direction and willing to do their share for the good of the team, and not be concerned with who may get the credit for the successes.
but be concerned with who may get the blame for the failures sorry had to say it |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 22, 2021 16:10:53 GMT -6
Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. In the school district where I teach, we like to include every single worker in our quest to serve the public. In other words, the custodians, the cafeteria cooks, etc. get accolades for how well we do as a school. Still, and this is a bit harsh I'm afraid, few of us really think that the custodian's work is on the same plane as that of the principal. Stan wasn't a custodian, but it sounds as though he was not calling the shots in those early days either. I always ran under the assumption that it was the custodian that actually ran the school and they just let the principal pretend they actually ran things.  Seriously though The thing I gathered about Stan was as the assistant GM most of his responsibility was on the financial end--tendering the QO's, etc. He was not in scouting and player acquisition. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. I thought Panarin was highly regarded when he decided to leave mother Russia and he basically had his choice of teams. He chose Chicago because he wanted to play with the great Patrick Kane........he chose well! While we gave up assets(mediocre but assets none the less)trading for Maata 4M(money already retained) and deHAAN-job 4.55M(dam near untradeable now) two summers ago the Habs signed Chiarot for 3.5M and the Habs were FAR from a go to destination at that point and here we are once again. Habs also added Joel Edmundson from the Canes last year for a 5th......we couldn't of offered a 4th? Both big,rugged D-men proved their worth in this year's PO's and here WE are once again. Stillman and C Jones to the rescue. He was somewhat highly regarded, but then again so was Tuomo Ruutu and if you compare their careers, there's a drop off. Stan could have taken a pass on him (like all 30 GM's did when he was eligible to be drafted), but he got him to the 'hawks and got him tucked in for 6M for a coupel of years which was very reasonable. Where Stan started the failure in that was trading him for Saad. Even though I saw the logic, Saad failed to pan out and in retrospect if the 'hawks kept Panarin, they might have lost him when his deal came due because he priced himself out, but think of the haul he could have got at the TDL...compared to Saad. Then Saad became Zadorov, who hits and that's about it. As for the D assets...yeah, I agree with you. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. ^ lots of people dont want to give SB on that first bolded statement ^ mine was when they lost to the Preds in the PO. I call it like I see it. IMHO If Pulford was running the show he probably would have nickeled and dimed the core to death and we might have gotten away with 1 cup--assuming of course that key assets, like Campbell and Hossa, were even signed in the 1st place. Stan may have overpaid some guys and did so late in their careers when the downturn happened, but he kept things together well enough for the 5-year run. In my opinion just like there are coaches who are better at development vs. outcoaching other coaches on established teams, there are some GM's better at managing the cap vs. building a team from nothing. IMHO Stan's the former. As for the end of 2017 vs end of 2018, it's debatable and I'll give you that, but I still think at that point it was obvious Crawford was masking the team's issue and Stan didn't do much to address anything; it looked like he was banking on fill-in guys being good enough to recharge the aging core, Crawford to bail everyone out, and playing petty power games with Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place type and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. As far as Stans drafts I dont think LA or PIT or Boston and any more than 3 major hits and Stan had alot of good minor ones shit Hartman was protected. All that being said Im with you on the second part he has no real long term plan never has he reacts. As far as the Hossa thing rumors were Dale wanted the bearded Jesus Scotty wanted Hossa who knows if this is true. As far as negotiating the contract the kids did that in 09, Hossa looked at that team and said I want to hitch my wagon to this. Agian just my takes, cant wait for the draft and moves so we can talk more future and less past. Thanks for all your posting boys you guys always give me alot to think about. Part of Stan's drafts also has to take into account player retention. It doesn't do a team much good if they draft a guy who's all that and a bag of Cheetos™, but ne never ends up playing for the squad that drafted him. Further, what was the return when they were sent out? Stan hitting on some of the lesser players is one thing that makes him a better maintainer than a builder in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by gigecj on Jul 22, 2021 16:23:27 GMT -6
In the school district where I teach, we like to include every single worker in our quest to serve the public. In other words, the custodians, the cafeteria cooks, etc. get accolades for how well we do as a school. Still, and this is a bit harsh I'm afraid, few of us really think that the custodian's work is on the same plane as that of the principal. Stan wasn't a custodian, but it sounds as though he was not calling the shots in those early days either. When I was working as a guidance counselor in a school in North Dakota, our principal once told me something I still remember to this day. He said, "If you or I were to be out of school in bad weather (like extreme cold or blizzards), the school could continue to operate. If Al (the head custodian) was out, the school may not be able to be open." That might have been a stretch, but the principal was wise enough to know the importance of each worker at the school of which he was in charge.
A real team, to be successful, needs to have all members (on or off the ice) pulling in the same direction and willing to do their share for the good of the team, and not be concerned with who may get the credit for the successes.
I think I totally hear what you're saying. Your principal is surely a wise man and a good man for recognizing the importance of somebody some may not realize as to his importance. I think that's truly great. My point however is more in terms of what schools are expected to do i.e. provide an excellent education for everyone. You can make good arguments for the custodian's connection to that and I'm with you. However, that custodian's direct connection to test scores simply cannot be on the same plane as that of the principal. To take that further in our minds, consider whom would be the first to send down the road if test scores began to suck. Hint, it wouldn't be the custodian. |
|
|
|
Post by nighbor on Jul 23, 2021 0:52:57 GMT -6
Stan was working in the front office before the foundation was poured (Crawford, Keith and Seabrook). I never claimed Stan did it all by himself. I said he played a part in team success. The people in power were well satisfied with his work and kept promoting him. No business including yours could afford to retain an employee as incompetent as you claim Stan was and stay in business. Stan negotiated the contracts of Keith and outnegotiated Pittsburg and Detroit to land Hossa plus supplied Q with the additional talent needed to win in 2013 and 2015. The team was relevant from 2009 when he became GM until the 2017 playoffs a run longer than most. I would say Stan did more than landscape. When I get down about losing I remind myself that I am not a Leaf fan and it gives me hope. We don't know how many cups we could have or would have won without Stan any more that know how many we could have or would have won if Savard had not been replaced by Q. Playing Devil's advocate: Was he in charge? Did he make any of the selections prior to taking over for Tallon? He played a part in the team's success, but what part was it Was he the guy scouting and evaluating talent, or was it in the cap/accounting side and tendering QO's? He was indeed a part of a team, but which part? I don't believe he singlehandedly scouted/drafted any/all of the core players. That was Tallon/Smith. That also wasn't his job at the time. Once he took over he had a team built and, in my opinion, did a good job keeping that team together and filling in missing pieces to dominate the league in the early 2010's. But now that the core has aged he has to build a team on his own, and that is completely different skillset, and right now he's not doing well at it. His only major hits in the draft have been Saad, T², and Debrincat...and only Debrincat remains. Of Panarin (who is one hell of a diamond in the rough and Stan and his scouts deserve credit for finding him out of nowhere), all we have to show for him now is Zadorov. Contrast that to Smith/Tallon who took freaking Karpo and parlayed the pick into Hjalmarsson, or Ellison for Sharp, or Bochenski for Versteeg. The way I see Stan is that he's the type of GM that works the best on established teams with a solid core already in place and helps them get the most out of every cap dollar. Not a builder/architect type. If Stan was as smart as he likes to think he is, he'd understand that and fill the roles around him with actual hockey guys who can evaluate talent and build solid teams, but that's Stan's fatal flaw: He does appear to have to be the smartest guy in the room and wants to do all of that himself. Right now we're paying for it--not so much from contracts like Toews, Kane, and Seabrook's, but from all of the one-off deals that have came and went that are stopping a proper rebuild: The Maata's, the DeHaan's, the acquiring Lehner and then letting him go for Malcom Subban. I think Stan's value to the 'hawks passed the minute the core became completely incapable of winning another cup. IMHO that was the close of the 2018 season. The number of players discovered by GM’s is miniscule as most were never scouts or not for very long. As head of hockey operations Stan evaluated talent. Big T who was never in the room claimed Stan was not a good talent evaluator but Rick Dudley a person in the room claimed Stan was a good evaluator. I will go with the man in the room every time. Prior to Stan taking charge he prepared budgets, evaluated talent, negotiated contacts and as AGM he sent out the QO’s but the GM decided who to qualify Smith/Pulford/Talon did not singlehandedly scout/draft any/all of the core players either. They relied on the information provided and stored by their staff including Stan. Talon drafted Toews but Toews was discovered three years earlier when Smith was boss. Who should be credited for drafting Toews? Smith, Pulford Talon or the scout who first found him? The previous championship team had three architects and a subcontractor so it will be hard but achievable. It took 49 years between cups so a handful of years without a cup is acceptable because every team goes through it. I still believe one cup can be won in the next three or four years. The European scouting staff also found Jan Rutta and Michal Kempny. They were not good enough to play for Q but good enough to play for champions Tampa Bay and Washington. Such European finds as Panarin are free agents and can be signed by anyone. Stan’s negotiating skills is what landed him. Panarin priced himself out of Chicago. Signed for 11M by the Rangers and he could not even lead them out of the Qualifying round. Andrew Shaw went undrafted until the fifth round in his third and final year of eligibility. Stan traded Shaw to Montreal for a 2nd round pick which became Debrincat. Kubalik was had for a 5th round pick. Lately we have been blessed with better draft positioning which has resulted in access to a more talented pool of players. |
|
|
|
Post by Tater on Jul 23, 2021 1:36:06 GMT -6
OK,then who is responsible for the debacle on ice we've seen for the last three years?
|
|
Seriously though The thing I gathered about Stan was as the assistant GM most of his responsibility was on the financial end--tendering the QO's, etc. He was not in scouting and player acquisition.